Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 'debate' between Bill Nye Science Guy vs Ken Ham Young Earth Creationist is starting right now. It can be watched live on various websites, google plus and youtube:
The debate was much better moderated and fairer than I thought it would be- probably because they had an external moderator. The audience questions were quite good as well- showing that it wasn't completely stacked with Young Earth Creationists.
Ken Ham got creamed by Bill Nye, but I'm sure Ken Ham will somehow declare 'victory' anyway on his Answers in Genesis website.
Please explain how a "scientist" can debate somebody whose whole belief system is based on FAITH?
The "scientist" can only quote or refute FACTS.
Of course, he can also espouse THEORIES. I suppose the "scientist" has FAITH that the THEORIES are (or will be proven in the future) factual.
But, what FACTS can the scientist use to disprove the story of creation as described in the Book Of Genesis?
Can the "scientist" also disprove the Hopi and/or Navajo Creation stories? When will he "debate" the Hopi Shaman?
When will he debate the Satanist? the Wiccan? the Gaia devotee? How about Odin and Valhalla?
No, I did not watch it. IMO, it would have been a waste of time, as it is to watch anything bill nye does.
Please explain how a "scientist" can debate somebody whose whole belief system is based on FAITH?
The "scientist" can only quote or refute FACTS.
Of course, he can also espouse THEORIES. I suppose the "scientist" has FAITH that the THEORIES are (or will be proven in the future) factual.
But, what FACTS can the scientist use to disprove the story of creation as described in the Book Of Genesis?
Can the "scientist" also disprove the Hopi and/or Navajo Creation stories? When will he "debate" the Hopi Shaman?
When will he debate the Satanist? the Wiccan? the Gaia devotee? How about Odin and Valhalla?
No, I did not watch it. IMO, it would have been a waste of time, as it is to watch anything bill nye does.
Creationism isn't based on facts, just feelings
You raise a good point, arguing with a fundamentalist about science is like arguing with a stray dog about philosophy.
The debate was much better moderated and fairer than I thought it would be- probably because they had an external moderator. The audience questions were quite good as well- showing that it wasn't completely stacked with Young Earth Creationists.
Ken Ham got creamed by Bill Nye, but I'm sure Ken Ham will somehow declare 'victory' anyway on his Answers in Genesis website.
Ken Ham is a strange creature. He has one of the most logical views of the Bible in the world, yet follows it to the completely wrong conclusions. His belief is that if the Bible is truly the word of God then every single bit of it should be factual and absolutely true. If not, then the entire thing should be questioned and should be suspected of being false. After all, how can God be wrong. Most rational people would look at all of the errors and inconsistencies in the Bible and conclude that it is indeed false. Not Ken though. Ken simply ignores reality and assumes the book is 100% correct and everything that is might be questioned as false is simply an "incorrect interpretation of the facts".
Please explain how a "scientist" can debate somebody whose whole belief system is based on FAITH?
The "scientist" can only quote or refute FACTS.
Of course, he can also espouse THEORIES. I suppose the "scientist" has FAITH that the THEORIES are (or will be proven in the future) factual.
But, what FACTS can the scientist use to disprove the story of creation as described in the Book Of Genesis?
Can the "scientist" also disprove the Hopi and/or Navajo Creation stories? When will he "debate" the Hopi Shaman?
When will he debate the Satanist? the Wiccan? the Gaia devotee? How about Odin and Valhalla?
No, I did not watch it. IMO, it would have been a waste of time, as it is to watch anything bill nye does.
You're right- it really isn't a debate. The main thing for me is that Bill Nye easily showed that Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with science or reality.
If someone wants to believe in the nonsense of a 6000 year old earth, let them. But don't try to teach kids that it's science.
Bill Nye was quite respectful of religious beliefs - he even used it as an argument that billions of people have religious beliefs but don't believe in a 6000 year old earth.
Please explain how a "scientist" can debate somebody whose whole belief system is based on FAITH?
That's a good question. It might have something to do with creationists attempting to refute legitimate science. Or in other words, I don't think science started this fight.
The "scientist" can only quote or refute FACTS.
Well, if you look at young earth creationism as a theory, it can be refuted with evidence.
Of course, he can also espouse THEORIES. I suppose the "scientist" has FAITH that the THEORIES are (or will be proven in the future) factual.
I don't know if they have faith. Confidence perhaps in some cases.
But, what FACTS can the scientist use to disprove the story of creation as described in the Book Of Genesis?
Well for starters, the evidence that supports the age of the earth certainly refutes a literal interpretation of The Book of Genesis, as literalists tend to believe that it tells them the earth is in fact much younger than the actual evidence indicates.
Can the "scientist" also disprove the Hopi and/or Navajo Creation stories? When will he "debate" the Hopi Shaman?
When will he debate the Satanist? the Wiccan? the Gaia devotee? How about Odin and Valhalla?
I don't know. That depends on whether any of those groups have a beef with legitimate science. As far as I'm aware, it's pretty much only fundamentalist Christians that do.
No, I did not watch it. IMO, it would have been a waste of time, as it is to watch anything bill nye does.
You missed out. Bill Nye was awesome as Speedwalker back on Almost Live! on KING 5 back in the day.
I have gone to churches of several different denominations in my life. In fact, I am a minister in a rather strange California denomination.
I have never been to a church that teaches the Creation Story in the first chapter of Genesis as "science". Faith-based BELIEF, yes. "SCIENCE", no.
Please enlighten us, which denominations teach the Creation Story as "science"?
"Creationism isn't based on facts, just feelings"
I disagree. It is FAITH, not "feelings". IMO, there truly IS a difference!
"Well for starters, the evidence that supports the age of the earth certainly refutes a literal interpretation of The Book of Genesis, as literalists tend to believe that it tells them the earth is in fact much younger than the actual evidence indicates."
Well, there you go... FAITH rears its ugly head again. A TRUE BELIEVER will tell you that GOD built the Earth to confuse the "scientists", deliberately putting all those clues to the age of rocks in place. After all, the TRUE BELIEVER knows that God is all powerful, all knowing, all everything, so naturally He built the Earth to conform to what the "scientists" believe is the truth.
No "scientist" can refute that kind of FAITH, no matter what he thinks he knows of the "natural world"!
"The "Laws of Physics"? God made them, He can do as He wishes with them.
A star 10 million light years away proves the universe is at least 10 million years old? Not really, God stretched those light rays over that distance in an instant. God doesn't believe in Einstein, y'see.
THAT is the whole point; "science" can't deny FAITH, but FAITH can deny "science". For "science", the battle is lost before it begins. "Science" MUST stick to FACTS. FAITH has no restrictions.
The 'debate' between Bill Nye Science Guy vs Ken Ham Young Earth Creationist is starting right now. It can be watched live on various websites, google plus and youtube:
"Is creation a viable model to explain our origins in this scientific era?"
Should be a real laugh.
I would think the Creationist guy should have had a distinct edge in the debate. After, he could have made up any "facts" he wanted to support his assertions.
I would think the Creationist guy should have had a distinct edge in the debate. After, he could have made up any "facts" he wanted to support his assertions.
No, FAITH does not need "FACTS" for support. THAT is the whole point! FAITH is not based on facts. FAITH is based on tradition or Holy writings, no more, no less.
However, "science" really should be based on FACTS, or at least definitive theories. So, the "scientist" is severely restricted in what he can claim.
Simple, isn't it...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
